Susan Sarandon: Astoundingly ignorant of history or brutally prejudiced?

October 20, 2011 | Filed under Leftist Tolerance,Moonbats,People In The News | Posted by

David Wolpe at the Washington Post is wondering:

Susan-sarandonA Nazi is someone who believes large segments of humanity should be brutally, summarily slaughtered.  A Nazi is someone who promoted, or now would applaud, the murder of six million Jews, and laments that the killing was not more comprehensive.  A Nazi is not someone who condemns homosexual behavior, or even homosexuals, but rather is one who wants homosexuals literally wiped off the face of the earth, along with gypsies, those who are disabled – well, the list goes on.

A Nazi is someone who herded people into concentration camps, dashed babies against brick ovens, put the babies’ parents inside those ovens, turned gas on in mock showers to suffocate people, thought other races inferior, barely human, worthy of contempt, slavery and death and literally planned world domination.  A Nazi is someone who belonged to a party that began a war enveloping the entire globe and resulting in the death of countless millions of people.  That is a Nazi.

The Holocaust is not a stick with which to beat those who disagree with us.  When it is used as a weapon, it cheapens the magnitude of the event and the suffering of those who endured it.   

So when Susan Sarandon calls the pope a Nazi, it is a difficult question to decide: is she demonstrating astounding historical ignorance or brutal prejudice?  Does she merely reach for the most savage epithet she can find to characterize those who disagree with her?  I have no conclusion; I merely wonder. 

What Susan Sarandon is demonstrating is simply delusion.  She is exemplifying what it means to embrace falsehood as truth and truth as anathema.  

She typifies for me what it means today to be a leftist.

There’s a side of me that has pity for her.  There’s a larger side of me that states simply she is making choices and those choices have consequences.  It’s a bed of her choosing. 

Sleep in it Ms. Sarandon.

« « Environmentalists ♥ Astroturfing
Is this the best the GOP can do? » »

Shortlink:

Posted by on October 20, 2011.
Filed under Leftist Tolerance, Moonbats, People In The News.
I blog more regularly at my own place where plain thoughts are delivered roughly. My about page gives you more on who I am.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Up to 90% off top rated local fun!

  • Pingback: Brutally Honest

  • http://otisthehand.blogspot.com/ OTIS the hand

    “Astoundingly ignorant of history or brutally prejudiced?”

    This is what is known as a “false dilemma.”

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      It could also be a case of the use of the non-exclusive “or.”

  • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

    Either-or?  How about both, as well being as a product of an industry that thinks that simply being able to act out a script well somehow imbues you with a mystical rise in your intellectual and moral prowess?

  • http://2011.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

    So when Susan Sarandon calls the pope a Nazi, it is a difficult question to decide: is she demonstrating astounding historical ignorance or brutal prejudice?

    Yes.

  • Anonymous

    Such as all the lefties during GW Bush calling him Hitler, etc. All from the same cloth. ww

  • Anonymous

    You can’t fix Stupid!

    • Anonymous

      No but but you can hand it Emmy’s, Oscars, Golden globes, Nobel’s and so forth. 

    • Anonymous

      …. You can’t fix Stupid …!

      Almost all evil is as banal.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Well, you can, but it only prevents future generations of the genetically stupid.  See also Nazi eugenics programs (eugenics having been pioneered by the progressives of that era).

      • Anonymous

        Spew Alert!

  • Anonymous

    What Sarandon is, is what most libs are; privileged, stupid, and immune to logic.

    Good thing she’s part of the tolerant party.

  • PBunyan

    Shame on Sarandon.  The Pope isn’t a Natzi anymore, he just was one in his youth.  Calling him one today would be like calling the late Senator Rober Byrd a KKK leader.  Without the qualifier “former” it’s simply not true.

    • http://profiles.google.com/rob5136 Rob Crawford

      He never was a Nazi — he was forced to have his name added to the rolls of the Hitler Youth, but refused to cooperate.

      Unlike, say, Soros. Who counts his time as a Nazi collaborator as one of the high points of his life.

  • jim_m

    Susan Sarandon:  Exemplar of left wing thinking today.

    Perhaps the left uses Nazi comparisons so freely because they share so many similarities.

  • http://otisthehand.blogspot.com/ OTIS the hand

    I am convinced that, were Hitler alive today, Susan Sarandon would be Eva Braun.

    • http://ethnografix.blogspot.com/ ryan a

      Ya, no doubt, Jeff,  Rule #1: Don’t be Eva Braun!  I just saw a film that talked about her a bit.  She was obsessed with things like fashion and playing house at her little castle in Bavaria, and meanwhile she was literally in bed with a genocidal maniac.  Talk about oblivious.  I am not sure if I buy the idea that Braun was *completely* oblivious, but it’s pretty shocking how detached she seemed to be from everything that was going on, right in front of her face.  There’s more than lesson in that story.

  • Anonymous

    Projection, is there anything Susan Sarandon can’t do with it?

  • Anonymous

    …. Susan Sarandon: Astoundingly ignorant of history and/or brutally prejudiced …?

    Yes.

  • Anonymous

    When you make a living by saying dialog someone else has written, there is usually a reason.

    STFU and act Susan.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

      Um, that ship has sailed – years ago.  Now she is an aging and forgotten actress, desperate for the attention upon which she thrives.

  • Anon Y. Mous

    I think some are missing what Sarandon was referring to. From the Pope’s Wikipedia page:

    Following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was conscripted into the Hitler Youth—as membership was required by law for all 14-year-old German boys after December 1939 —but was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings, according to his brother. In 1941, one of Ratzinger’s cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was taken away by the Nazi regime and killed during the Aktion T4 campaign of Nazi eugenics. In 1943, while still in seminary, he was drafted into the German anti-aircraft corps as Luftwaffenhelfer. Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry. As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted back to his family’s home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established their headquarters in the Ratzinger household. As a German soldier, he was put in a POW camp but was released a few months later at the end of the war in the summer of 1945. He reentered the seminary, along with his brother Georg, in November of that year.

    She is basing her smear on the fact that a 14 year old boy was required by the Nazis to join their little club.

    • jim_m

      Nice.  So Sarandon compounds the atrocities of the Nazi’s by condemning their victims as being members of the very group that victimized them.  Only someone from the lunatic left could be so ignorant.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000487814511 Roy R Meadows

      Just like the teachers union forcing teachers to brainwash children by singing songs of praise of a black Hitler wannabe.

    • Anonymous

      The biggest problem is that, even just looking at Wikipedia, it says CITATION NEEDED for the MANDATORY joining requirement.  Digging further, There’s a bit of a timeline issue – in 1939, it was mandatory only for age 17 and older.  At some point in 1941, it became mandatory for boys 10 and up.  It remains unclear whether it was mandatory, or when, for girls.  The Pope joined in 1941, and that was the same year that Germany declared war on the United States.  One could “assume the best” and that the law went into effect before Benedict’s 14th birthday in April, and that he joined “upon turning 14″ in compliance with the law, or that the law went into effect with the December 11th Declaration of War against the US, and that is when Benedict joined, or “assume the worst” and that Benedict joined on his April birthday (especially as age 14 was the lowest age for the actual Hitler Youth, and not the junior ‘Jungvolk’) but the law went into effect at the end of the year.  Without specific research into the joining date and the date the law went into force, it STILL is unclear and easily assumable either way.

      • Anonymous

        The problem there is just looking at Wikipedia.  It can be a nice starting point, but only fool uses it as their sole source.

        • Anonymous

          SCSI – of course.  But since the Anonymous person referenced it without noting the “citation needed” qualifier, that was a good a starting point as any.

          Based on other, non-Wikipedia, sources, there’s a grey area around the timing of his joining.  It seems established he joined “when 14″ which means during and after April ’41, but other than “during ’41″ there’s no indication as to when the relevant law was changed to make mandatory membership for the 10-to-17 year old set.  Odds are he did it under legal compulsion, but given a brief web-only search I can’t say one way or the other.

          • Anonymous

            Benefit of the doubt traditionally goes to the accused.

          • Anonymous

            True.  Though, remember, the vast majority of trials where there is an accused give one of two results: “guilty” or “not guilty,”  with the latter being more the the “not proven to be guilty” version rather than the “is innocent of the charges” type.

            In keeping with the criminal trial motif, I’d say there’s reasonable doubt it was voluntary.  But we’d know for certain if we knew the date of joining and the date the ’41 law went into force.  A reasonable assumption is, while the public at large may not have that information, the College of Cardinals during the voting for Pontiff DID have that information, or at least it was available to them.

          • Anonymous

            And how would the fact that he didn’t participate in the HY and deserted from the Wermacht, which I assume you concede he was a conscript, weigh in your court?
            On Oct 22, 2011 1:26 AM, “Disqus”

  • http://ethnografix.blogspot.com/ ryan a

    From the link: “The Holocaust is not a stick with which to beat those who disagree
    with us.  When it is used as a weapon, it cheapens the magnitude of the
    event and the suffering of those who endured it.”

    Yep.  I agree with that 100%.